STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

UnitedWayALICE.org

ALICEASSET LIMITED, INCOME CONSTRAINED, EMPLOYED

Fall 2014

ABOUT THE UNITED WAY ALICE PROJECT 2009: A pilot United Way research venture released a study of working poverty in affluent Morris County, New Jersey that coined the term ALICE – an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. The ALICE study revealed that despite the perception of wealth, Morris County had a sizable hidden population of working households earning more than the Federal Poverty Level, but not enough to afford basic necessities.

2012: United Way of Northern New Jersey released the first statewide ALICE Report, measuring the impact of the Great Recession (2007–2010) on New Jersey’s ALICE population. The Report’s findings were stark: fully 30 percent of New Jersey households earned too little to afford the basic necessities, and more than half of the state’s jobs paid less than $20 an hour. Those findings sparked a grassroots movement among United Ways across the country to adopt the ALICE language and methodology, as it became clear that the ALICE population extended far beyond New Jersey’s borders.

2014: The United Way ALICE Project expanded to include United Way ALICE Reports for five additional states – California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, and Michigan – as well as an updated Report for New Jersey. Measuring economic conditions from 2010 to 2012, the new Reports looked at both the impact of and the ongoing recovery from the Great Recession. In all six states, the Reports found that the Great Recession had an even greater impact than first realized, and that conditions for ALICE households have not improved in the two subsequent years.

For full ALICE Reports and methodology for the six states, go to: www.UnitedWayAlice.org

The Household Survival Budget for all household variations by county can be found at:http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice

ALICE DATA PARAMETERSThe ALICE measures are calculated for 2007, 2010, and 2012 in order to compare the beginning and the end of the economic downturn known as the Great Recession and any progress made in the two years following the Recession. The 2012 results will also serve as an important baseline from which to measure both the continuing recovery and the impact of the Affordable Care Act in the years ahead.

RESEARCH PARTNERThe United Way ALICE Project has partnered with Stephanie Hoopes Halpin and the School of Public Affairsand Administration (SPAA) at Rutgers University-Newark. SPAA is an educational leader in government andnon-profit management. Ranked 10th nationally in public management and administration, SPAA promotes anethics-based performance approach to effective, equitable, and accountable policy implementation through itsinnovative and comprehensive undergraduate, professional and graduate degrees and certificate programs.

NATIONAL ALICE ADVISORY COUNCILThe following companies are major funders and supporters of the United Way ALICE Project.

AT&T | Atlantic Health System | Deloitte | Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation | UPS

1 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

THE 2014 UNITED WAY ALICE REPORTS

THE NEW FACE OF HARDSHIP: MEET ALICEHalf a century after the War on Poverty was first waged, United Ways in six states have embarked on aresearch project that aims to ignite a fresh, nonpartisan national dialogue around the number and scope ofworking Americans who are unable to afford basic needs today.

Called the United Way ALICE Project, this data-driven, grassroots movement is working to mobilizeindividuals, communities, and corporations by redefining the struggle for social and financial stability in termsthat fit the needs of our day. ALICE stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed – residents who earn more than the U.S. poverty level, but less than the basic cost of living.

United Ways in California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, and New Jersey have taken the lead tochallenge today’s perceptions of financial hardship. United Way ALICE Reports are being unveiled in each ofthese states, serving as a launching pad for some 200 United Ways to engage policy makers at the local, stateand national levels, corporate America, academics, the faith community, ALICEs, and others to pursuesolutions for financial stability. Together, these six states represent one-quarter of the U.S. population.

The Reports found that in each of these six states, at least 35 percent of households – more than one-third– struggle to afford the basic cost of living.

ALICE is our preschool teachers, home health aides, and mechanics – essential workers who are needed to keep our communities and economies humming, yet who struggle to make ends meet and pay basic bills, such as housing, food, and transportation.

Far more than studies of poverty, the Reports uncover profound changes in the structure of communities and jobs nationwide. What emerges from these Reports is a deeper picture of financialinstability – one often obscured by outdated federal poverty measurements. ALICE reveals that financialhardship is not confined to the inner cities, racial and ethnic minorities, and the unemployed. ALICE is a partof our communities, and often our families. ALICE lives in every county in the six states, pays taxes, is often working in jobs essential to the economy.

2UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

RETHINKING HARDSHIP: WHAT THE ALICE RESEARCH SAYSWhen Americans think about financial hardship, they often assume that poverty affects a few isolated groups,worsened during the Great Recession, and has improved since. Three stereotypes often come to mind: thatpeople who struggle financially are primarily Black or Hispanic, that they live primarily in urban areas, and thatthey are unemployed.

The findings of the ALICE Reports debunk these assumptions and stereotypes, creating a broad, accurate, data-driven picture of how many households are struggling financially in each state. In each of the states covered by the 2014 Reports, five facts stand out:

1. Thirty-five percent or more of households in each state – more than one-third – struggle to afford basic necessities. These households are part of every community and include workers in jobs essential to the functioning of every local economy. Percent of Households with Income below the ALICE Threshold for States with 2014 ALICE Report

2. The number of ALICE households increased from 2007 to 2012. The percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold increased in all states through the Great Recession and in the two years following – ranging from a 5 percent increase in Michigan from 2007 to 2012 to a 25 percent increase in Florida.

Source: American Community Survey, 2012, and the ALICE Threshold; 2014 United Way ALICE Reports

3 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

3. ALICE households exist in all age groups. Households headed by someone in their prime wage-earning years of 25 to 64 represent the largest segment of ALICE households in each state. Seniors are also disproportionately likely to be ALICE, even with Social Security benefits.

4. ALICE and poverty-level households are not confined to urban areas, but live in every county in each state. In every county in each of the six states – including rural, urban, and some of the wealthiest suburban counties in the country – more than 20 percent of households live below the ALICE Threshold.

5. ALICE households closely mirror the racial/ethnic demographics of each state’s overall population. In each of the six states, more than two-thirds of ALICE households are White.

MEASURING FINANCIAL HARDSHIPThe six 2014 United Way ALICE Reports reveal profound changes in the structure of jobs and communities.The Reports document the increase in the basic cost of living, the decrease in the availability of jobs that payenough to support household necessities, and the shortage of housing that the wages of the majority of eachstate’s jobs can afford.

To understand the extent of financial hardship in a given state, each Report looks at economic conditionsacross the state as a collection of detailed, local economic landscapes. Financial hardship is in many ways local: what do the basic necessities cost, what jobs are available, and what do they pay in Morris County, New Jersey? In Broward County, Florida? In Tolland County, Connecticut? When data is compiled county by county, how do the six states ultimately differ in the dimensions of financial hardship, and how are they alike?

To explore these local landscapes, the Reports introduce four new measures of economic conditionsbased on the interplay of local wages, job opportunities, and cost of living:

• The Household Survival Budget calculates the actual costs of basic necessities (housing, child care, food, health care, and transportation) in a state, adjusted for different counties and household types.

• The ALICE Threshold is the average level of income that a household needs to afford the basics defined by the Household Survival Budget for each county in a state. The Threshold provides a realistic measure for income inadequacy based on the actual local cost of basic household necessities. Unlike the Federal Poverty Level and other measures, the ALICE Threshold is adjusted to reflect cost of living differences on a county-by-county basis. Households with income below the ALICE Threshold include both ALICE and poverty-level families.

• The ALICE Income Assessment is the calculation of all sources of income, resources, and assistance for ALICE and poverty-level households in a state. Even with assistance, in every state the Assessment reveals a significant shortfall – the Unfilled Gap – between what these households bring in and what is needed for them to reach the ALICE Threshold.

• The Economic Viability Dashboard uses three indices to evaluate the economic conditions that matter most to ALICE households – housing affordability, job opportunities, and community support – in each county in a state.

4UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

A SIX-STATE COMPARISONAcross the six states, there are striking similarities in the magnitude of financial hardship, but there are alsointeresting regional differences in economic conditions and public assistance. For example, the percent ofhouseholds earning less than the Household Survival Budget is highest in California (46 percent) and Florida(45 percent), and lowest in Connecticut (35 percent), with 40 percent in Michigan, 38 percent in New Jersey,and 37 percent in Indiana (Figure 1). The differences in these percentages can be attributed mainly to regionaldifferences in the cost of living and certain key economic conditions, including the availability of affordablehousing, the number of jobs available, and the average hourly wage found in each of the six states.

Figure 1.Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold, by State, 2012

The impact of the Great Recession was severe for low-income households. The percent of households withincome below the ALICE Threshold increased in all states through the Great Recession and the two yearsfollowing. However, the range varied. The largest percent increase was in Florida (25 percent from 2007 to2012); the smallest was in Michigan (5 percent from 2007 to 2012). Percentage increases for the other stateswere 19 percent in New Jersey, 16 percent in Indiana, 13 percent in Connecticut, and 12 percent inCalifornia (American Community Survey, 2007–2012).

Source: American Community Survey, 2012, and the ALICE Threshold; 2014 United Way ALICE Reports

5 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

THE COST OF LIVINGThe cost of the five basic household necessities of housing, child care, food, health care, and transportation, plus taxes and a 10 percent contingency, varies across the six states. The average cost of living for a family of four ranges from $46,495 per year in Indiana to $64,689 per year in Connecticut (Figure 2).

One of the key strengths of the ALICE methodology is the ability to incorporate differences in costs at thecounty level. Across the six states, the least expensive household budget for a family of four (two adults,one infant, and one preschooler) is in DeSoto County, Florida at $36,886 per year, and the most expensiveis in Santa Clara County, California at $77,222 per year.

Figure 2.Household Survival Budget, 2012, Monthly Expenses for a Family of Four

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Child Care Aware, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Labor Statistics,Internal Revenue Service and state treasuries; 2014 United Way ALICE Reports

6UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

ECONOMIC CONDITIONSThe Economic Viability Dashboard provides a window directly into the economic conditions that matter mostto ALICE households. The Dashboard is made up of three indices: Housing Affordability, Job Opportunities,and Community Support. An analysis by county reveals that across the six states, a common challengeALICE households face is finding job opportunities in the same counties where they can afford the basic costof living. In addition, many affordable counties do not have much community support. The ideal locations arethose that are affordable and offer high levels of both job opportunities and community support.

Comparing the three indices over time reveals a striking picture of conditions worsening in most counties in all six states over the course of the Great Recession (2007 to 2010). Conditions improved slightly in many counties from 2010 to 2012, but did not return to 2007 levels.

Two variables stand out in this analysis: the wages of available jobs, and the availability of housingthat is affordable on the wages paid by the majority of jobs.

Due to structural economic changes over the past three decades that were amplified by the Great Recession, more than half of all jobs in each of the six states pay less than $20 per hour ($40,000 a year if full time year round) – not enough for a family of four to afford the basic cost of housing, child care, food, health care, andtransportation.

The states with the highest percent of low-wage jobs are Florida and Indiana, where 69 percent of jobs paybelow $20 per hour, and 54 percent and 51 percent, respectively, pay below $15 per hour. But even inConnecticut, which has the lowest percent, 51 percent of jobs pay below $20 per hour and 33 percent pay below$15 per hour (Figure 3) (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2012).

Figure 3.Jobs by Hourly Wage, 2012

Moreover, the growth of low-skilled jobs is projected to outpace that of medium- and high-skilled jobs into the next decade in all six states. At the same time, the cost of basic household necessities continues to rise.

Source: BLS, 2012; 2014 United Way ALICE Reports

7 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

Housing – one of the most expensive items in the ALICE family budget – offers a clear example of thechallenges that ALICE households face. The analysis of affordable rental units (including both market rateaffordable and subsidized) reveals that in all six states, there is a shortage of rental units that ALICEhouseholds can afford. In order for all households below the ALICE Threshold not to have an extremehousing burden – that is, not to spend more than 35 percent of their income on housing – each of the sixstates would need hundreds of thousands of additional affordable units. Connecticut would need 100,000additional units; California would need 1.4 million. The percent of renters below the ALICE Threshold who donot have afforcable housing options ranges from 31 percent in New Jersey to 55 percent in Florida(American Community Survey, 2012) (Figure 4).

Figure 4.Percent of Renters Below ALICE Threshold Without Affordable Housing

Source: American Community Survey, 2012, the ALICE Threshold; 2014 United Way ALICE Reports

8UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

INCOME, ASSISTANCE, AND THE UNFILLED GAP To date, the total cost of public and nonprofit assistance for struggling households has not been tallied on a state-by-state basis. The ALICE Income Assessment provides this information for these six states. The Income Assessment is a tool to measure how much income a household needs to reach the ALICE Threshold compared to how much they actually earn. This is calculated by totaling the income needed to reach the ALICE Threshold, then subtracting earned income, as well as government and nonprofit assistance. The remainder is the Unfilled Gap, highlighted in Figure 5.

In each state, many households earn less than half of what is needed to be financially stable. ALICE andpoverty-level households in Indiana earn the least – only 36 percent of the income needed to reach the ALICEThreshold for basic economic survival. The most these same households earn is in California, at 44 percent ofwhat is needed; in Connecticut and New Jersey, households earn 41 percent; in Florida, 40 percent; and inMichigan, 39 percent.

Figure 5.Income and Assistance for Households Below the ALICE Threshold, 2012

Public and nonprofit assistance makes a crucial difference for households with income below the ALICEThreshold, but in no state does it completely bridge the Unfilled Gap. Even after including assistance, thesmallest gap between resources and the ALICE Threshold is found in Connecticut, at 12 percent, and thelargest is in New Jersey, at 34 percent (National Priorities Project’s Federal Priorities Database, U.S.Department of Education, 2012; USDA, 2012; United Way 2014 ALICE Reports). Also, most assistance isprovided as goods or services in response to needs throughout the year, not cash in advance that can beused to plan ahead.

Source: National Priorities Project’s Federal Priorities Database, USDA, U.S. Department of Education; 2014 United Way ALICE Reports

9 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

Assistance to households with income below the ALICE Threshold includes:

• Health care benefits, which the six ALICE Reports reveal to be the most variable form of public assistance nationally, ranging from 8 percent of the resources needed for families to reach the ALICE Threshold in Indiana to 21 percent in Connecticut. This may be due in part to differing methods of calculating and reporting charity care, community care, and unreimbursed expenses. But it also suggests large differences in the availability of health care for low-income households across the country.

• Cash public assistance, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), ranges from 5 percent of the resources needed for families to reach the ALICE Threshold in California to 10 percent in Indiana and Michigan.

• Government programs (both federal and state), including Head Start, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), housing, and human services. These benefits range from 8 percent of the resources for families to reach the ALICE Threshold in New Jersey to 19 percent in Michigan.

• Contributions from human service nonprofits (excluding government grants or user fees), which range from 1 percent of the resources needed for families to reach the ALICE Threshold in New Jersey to 12 percent in Indiana.

ALICE DEMOGRAPHICSALICE households vary in size and makeup; there is no typical configuration. There are young and old ALICEhouseholds, those with children, and those with a family member who is a veteran, or who has a disability.They vary in educational level attained, race and ethnicity, immigrant status, and geographic location. Thesehouseholds also move in and out of being ALICE over time.

• Workers in their prime earning years, 25 to 64 years old, make up the largest segment of ALICE households. This is not surprising since this age group is the largest demographic in each state, but it underscores the fact that across the country, many jobs do not pay enough to allow families to afford the most basic household budget.

• Seniors are more likely to qualify as ALICE households. The percent of seniors with income (including Social Security) below the ALICE Threshold ranges from 32 percent in Michigan to 46 percent in New Jersey. In California, 42 percent of seniors fall below the ALICE Threshold, as do 40 percent in Florida, 39 percent in Connecticut, and 34 percent in Indiana. With the aging of the U.S. population, these numbers are poised to increase.

• Households with children are one of the most common ALICE household types. In all states, the most expensive household budget is for a household with young children, due not only to the larger size of those households but also to the cost of child care, preschool, and after-school care.

• As in the overall population, a majority of each state’s ALICE households are White (U.S. Census terminology). However, due to wage discrepancies that disproportionately affect certain groups, both Blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in the population living below the ALICE Threshold.

• Nationally, immigrants are only slightly more likely to be poverty-level or ALICE households than non-immigrants. Yet for some subsets of immigrant groups, such as non-citizens, recent immigrants, and the language-isolated, the likelihood increases.

10UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

COMMON THEMES FOR ALICE FAMILIESIn addition to the data presented above, the Reports examine the setbacks that these households face andthe coping strategies that they rely on when they do not have enough income to afford the basic householdnecessities. While the particular circumstances of the six states vary widely, some common themes haveemerged:

• The financial equation for college is changing. With the cost of college and the changing job landscape, a bachelor’s degree is no longer a guarantee of prosperity. The decision to go to college, incur debt, and choose a major has become more complicated over the last decade. (See Section VI and Conclusion in the ALICE Reports.)

• Child care is often the most expensive item in a family’s budget. Without it, children may not gain pre-learning skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond, and one parent has to forgo work, limiting future earning potential. Yet because the cost of licensed and accredited child care facilities is out of reach for many households, ALICE families may instead turn to more informal options, such as less closely regulated facilities, family members, or friends, where the quality of care often varies widely. Inadequate child care impacts not only children but also parents and employers, resulting in absenteeism from work, tardiness, and low productivity. (See Sections II, VI, and Conclusion in the ALICE Reports.)

• Caregiving for family members is expensive, in both the short term and the long term. Many families face additional expenses when caring for a relative with a disability or an aging parent, including the cost of adult day care or extraordinary health services and the loss of the caregiver’s own wages or earning potential. Already, one-third of households nationwide have a family member serving as a caregiver (AARP, 2011), and as our population ages, caregiving will become an increasingly large financial burden for many families. (See Sections I and VI in the ALICE Reports.)

• Wage discrimination by gender continues to exist in every state. Households with a single earner are already at an economic disadvantage, especially if the wage earner also has family care duties, and that disadvantage is compounded if the wage earner is female. (See Section I in the ALICE Reports.)

• Immigrant groups vary widely in language, education, job skills, and age. Many immigrants to the U.S. have income below the ALICE Threshold. With the aging of the American workforce, recent and younger immigrants will be an important source of workers and population growth; yet an educational achievement gap for many immigrant students persists in all six states, limiting the potential contribution of these new residents. (See Section I and Conclusion in the ALICE Reports.)

• Young veterans are most at risk of being in poverty or ALICE households as they are more likely to be unemployed, to have a disability, and, in the aggregate, to have less formal education than their older counterparts. (See Section I in the ALICE Reports.)

• ALICE votes. Households with income roughly below the ALICE Threshold accounted for at least a third of the electorate in the 2012 Presidential election in five states (NBCNews.com, 2012). (See Section I in the ALICE Reports.)

11 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

IMPLICATIONS FOR WIDER COMMUNITIESThere are serious consequences for both ALICE households and their communities when these households cannot afford the basic necessities. ALICE households are forced to make difficult choices such as forgoing preventative health care, accredited child care, healthy food, or car insurance. These “savings” threaten their health, safety, and future – and they reduce economic productivity and raise insurance premiums and taxes for everyone. The costs are high for both ALICE families and the wider community.

Across the six states, when the current system does not work for ALICE households, these households turn to alternative services. While the services differ in different parts of the country, there is an increased use of alternatives in every state. For example, if a family does not qualify for a traditional loan, they use payday lenders, “contract for deed” mortgages, and “Buy Here, Pay Here” auto loans. If they cannot affordaccredited childcare, they use unlicensed or untrained child care providers.

Some of these alternatives are helpful and fill a gap; some cause new problems. However, they all represent additional challenges in terms of regulation, oversight, and greater inequality in every state.

ALICE: THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CHANGE In each of these six states, the condition of the economy and meeting ALICE’s challenges are linked:improvement for one would directly benefit the other. The tools presented in the six United Way ALICEReports provide the means for stakeholders – policy makers, community leaders, and business leaders – tobetter understand the magnitude and variety of households facing financial hardship. That enhancedunderstanding is key to making more effective change possible.

For ALICE families, change is needed in the short term as well as the long term. Short-term intervention by family, employers, nonprofits, and government can mitigate crises for financially unstable households and possibly prevent an economic spiral downward. For example, providing a month’s worth of food for a family may enable a father to repair a car transmission and get to work. If a family’s primary earner cannot get to work, he might lose wages or even his job. Without regular income, the family cannot afford rent or mortgage payments and risks becoming homeless.

The longer-term solutions for ALICE households require broader structural economic changes, particularlyimproving income and housing opportunities. Reducing the number of ALICE households requires a significantincrease in the wages of current jobs or in the number of medium- and high-skilled jobs in both the public andprivate sectors, as well as making quality, affordable housing more available or locating it closer to jobopportunities. Structural economic changes would significantly improve the prospects for ALICE and enablehardworking households to support themselves.

UNITED WAY: IMPROVING LIVES & COMMUNITIESUnited Way is committed to using current research, community dialogue, and data-driven policy solutions toensure that our communities are viable places to live and work. The United Way ALICE Reports offer a newset of tools to move us closer to that goal, and each United Way is using the ALICE data to craft specificstrategies for the communities it serves. In the hope that these Reports can serve as a national model, wechallenge stakeholders in every state to consider them as an opportunity for a new dialogue about how toimprove the lives of working families across the country.

12UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

BIBLIOGRAPHYAARP Public Policy Institute, “Valuing the Invaluable: 2011 Update – The Economic Value of Family Caregiving in 2009,” Fact Sheet, AARP, 2011.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey, May 2007 and 2012.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES), 2007–2012.

California Franchise Tax Board, Instructions for Form 540/540A – California Resident Income Tax Return, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

Child Care Aware (formerly the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, or NACCRRA), annual child care rates as reported by their associated state agencies, 2007–2012.

Connecticut Department of Revenue Services 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

National Priorities Project’s Federal Priorities Database. Local Spending Data,

Haskins, Ron, “Fighting Poverty the American Way,” The Brookings Institution, June 2011.

Indiana Department of Revenue 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

Internal Revenue Service 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

Michigan Department of Treasury, Michigan 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income 990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report, Urban Institute, 2012.

New Jersey Treasury 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI), U.S. Census, LED Extraction Tool, 2012.

U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE), American Community Survey, 2012.

U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS), 2007, 2010 and 2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home, U.S. Average, June 2007–2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Data and Statistics website, FY 2012.

U.S. Department of Education, ESEA Title I LEA Allocations, FY 2012.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Fair Market Rent, 2007–2012.

Uniform Crime Reports, FBI, 2012.

13 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– SI

X-ST

ATE

COM

PARI

SON

UNITED WAYS OF THE SIX STATESCONNECTICUTMiddlesex United Way

United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut

United Way of Coastal Fairfield County

United Way of Connecticut

United Way of Greater New Haven

United Way of Greater Waterbury

United Way of Greenwich

United Way of Meriden and Wallingford

United Way of Milford

United Way of Naugatuck and Beacon Falls

United Way of Northwest Connecticut

United Way of Southeastern Connecticut

United Way of Southington

United Way of West Central Connecticut

United Way of Western Connecticut

Valley United Way

CALIFORNIA United Ways of California

Arrowhead United Way

Central County United Way

Corona-Norco United Way

Desert Communities United Way

Inland Empire United Way

Kings United Way

Northern Santa Barbara County United Way

Orange County United Way

United Way California Capital Region

United Way of Fresno County

United Way of Greater Los Angeles

United Way of Imperial County

United Way of Indian Wells Valley

United Way of Kern County, Inc.

United Way of Madera County

United Way of Merced County

United Way of Mojave Valley

United Way of Monterey County

United Way of Nevada County

United Way of Northern California

United Way of San Diego County

United Way of San Joaquin County

United Way of San Luis Obispo County

United Way of Santa Barbara County

United Way of Santa Cruz County

United Way of Stanislaus County

United Way of the Bay Area

United Way of the Desert

United Way of the Inland Valleys

United Way of the Wine Country

United Way of Tulare County

United Way of Ventura County

United Way Silicon Valley

Woodland United Way

Yuba-Sutter United Way

FLORIDAUnited Way of the Big Bend

United Way of Brevard County

United Way of Broward County

United Way of Central Florida

United Way of Charlotte County

United Way of Citrus County

United Way of Collier County

United Way of Escambia County

United Way of Lee, Hendry, Glades and Okeechobee Counties

United Way of Manatee County

United Way of Marion County

United Way of the Florida Keys

Heart of Florida United Way

United Way of Hernando County

United Way of Indian River County

United Way of Lake and Sumter Counties

United Way of Martin County

United Way of Miami-Dade

United Way of North Central Florida

United Way of Northeast Florida

United Way of Northwest Florida

United Way of Okaloosa and Walton Counties

United Way of Palm Beach County

United Way of Pasco County

United Way of Putnam County

United Way of St. Johns County

United Way of St. Lucie County

United Way of Santa Rosa County

United Way of South Sarasota

United Way Suncoast

United Way of Suwannee Valley

United Way of Volusia-Flagler Counties

INDIANAUnited Way of Adams County

United Way of Allen County

United Way of Bartholomew County

Blackford United Way

United Way of Cass County

United Way of Central Indiana

United Way for Clinton County

United Way of Danville Area, IL (Fountain County)

United Way of Daviess County

Decatur County United Fund

United Way of DeKalb County

United Way of Delaware County

United Way of Elkhart County

United Way of Fayette County

United Way of Franklin County

United Way of Fulton County

United Way of Gibson County

United Way of Grant County

United Way of Greater Cincinnati (Dearborn and Ohio Counties)

United Way of Greater Lafayette

United Way of Greater LaPorte County

Henry County United Fund

United Way of Howard County

United Way of Huntington County

Jackson County United Way

United Way of Jay County

Jefferson County United Way

Jennings County United Way

United Way of Johnson County

United Way of Knox County

United Way of Kosciusko County

United Fund of LaGrange County

Lake Area United Way

United Way of Madison County

United Way of Marshall County

Metro United Way of Southern IN (Clark, Floyd and Harrison Counties)

United Way of Miami County

United Way of Monroe County

Montgomery County United Fund

United Way of Noble County

United Way of Perry County

United Way of Pike County

United Way of Porter County

United Way of Posey County

United Way of Putnam County

United Way of Randolph County

United Way of St. Joseph County

United Way of Scott County

Shelby County United Fund

United Way of South Central Indiana

United Way of Southwestern Indiana

Starke United Fund

Steuben County United Way

United Fund of Switzerland County

Tipton County United Community Fund

Wabash County United Fund

United Way of the Wabash Valley

United Way of Wells County

White County United Way

United Way of Whitewater Valley

United Way of Whitley County

MICHIGANAlbion-Homer United Way

Allegan County United Way

Barry County United Way

Branch County United Way

Capital Area United Way

Char-Em United Way

Cheboygan County United Way

Chelsea United Way

Copper Country United Way

Crawford County United Way

Eaton County United Way

Gogebic Range United Way

Greater Huron County United Way

Greater Ottawa County United Way

Heart of West Michigan United Way

Lenawee United Way

Livingston County United Way

Marshall United Way

Mecosta-Osceola United Way

Ogemaw County United Way

Oscoda Area United Way

Otsego County United Way

Plymouth Community United Way

Roscommon County United Way

Shiawassee United Way

St. Joseph County United Way

Tri-City Area United Way

United Way for Southeastern Michigan

United Way of Bay County

United Way of Clare and Gladwin Counties

United Way of Delta County

United Way of Dickinson County

United Way of Eastern Upper Peninsula

United Way of Genesee County

United Way of Gratiot County

United Way of Isabella County

United Way of Jackson County

United Way of Lapeer County

United Way of Manistee County

United Way of Marquette County

United Way of Mason County

United Way of Midland County

United Way of Monroe County

United Way of Montcalm-Ionia Counties

United Way of Northeast Michigan

United Way of Northwest Michigan

United Way of Saginaw County

United Way of Sanilac County

United Way of Southwest Michigan

United Way of St. Clair County

United Way of the Battle Creek and Kalamazoo Region

United Way of the Lakeshore

United Way of Tuscola County

United Way of Washtenaw County

United Way of Wexford and Missaukee Counties

Van Buren County United Way

NEW JERSEYUnited Way of Bergen County

United Way of Cape May County

United Way of Central Jersey

United Way of Essex and West Hudson

United Way of Gloucester County

United Way of Greater Mercer County

United Way of Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey

United Way of Greater Union County

United Way of Hudson County

United Way of Hunterdon County

United Way of Monmouth County

United Way of Northern New Jersey

United Way of Ocean County

United Way of Passaic County

United Way of Salem County

© Copyright 2009–2014 United Way of Northern New Jersey. All rights reserved.

No further use, copying, dissemination, distribution, or publication is permitted without the express written permission of United Way of Northern New Jersey.